Spanish dialogue in Spielberg's "West Side Story" remake won't be subtitled

[Leo Enticknap]

Agreed completely, and I've read reviews speculating the same thing (e.g. here: "...but older moviegoers, who made up the bulk of ticket-buyers for Spielberg’s latest, have been among the slowest to return."). Nothing I've read has attributed the poor opening weekend to the unsubtitled dialogue, even as a minor factor. Another aspect could be that the movie addresses a "difficult" and politically sensitive topic (immigration and assimilation), and has a pretty downbeat ending, both of which make it a tough sell at this time of year. A summer release would have been a better fit, IMHO.

[Steve Guttag]

This is pure speculation on my part, because word of mouth is that it is an A+ movie...the (Broadway) musical movie market caters to an elder generation. These are the very people that are still not comfortable going to movies. They've been brainwashed into thinking that theatres are inherently unsafe (in a Covid sense) despite no evidence. Going to the movies is something that they can certainly do without and before long, they'll be able to see it in some other form. My art house customers are not seeing anywhere near the bounce back that my conventional theatres have seen. Again, art houses tend to have customers in an age group that is less comfortable going out again.

[Frank Cox]

The weekend box office articles indicate that West Side Story is pretty much a dud, doing even less business than In the Heights did on its opening weekend.

West Side Story. One of the most well known titles with (I thought) name recognition similar to Gone with the Wind and the Wizard of Oz.

So... what's wrong with it? I haven't seen it but I assume it must be at least some good since the articles say that audiences are giving it an A.

[Mike Blakesley]

my point is for a filmmaker to announce publicly, before the movie's release, that it does something that is likely to put a viewer of average education and intelligence off seeing it, that is a risky strategy, to put it mildly.

Probably some publicist decided "Well, there's no such thing as bad publicity" and decided to write up the press release.

[Ed Gordon]

I've read quite a few reviews of this movie and the subtitle 'issue' has never been mentioned in any of them so far.

Just sayin'.

That has been my experience as well. The Seattle Times reviewer did mention that subtitles were not used, but did not complain about it (see last sentence below)

Many of the characters feel more richly drawn this time around — Tony (Ansel Elgort) now has a backstory that explains his reluctance to be drawn back into the gang; Maria is given much more autonomy; Riff (Mike Faist) is less carefree and more damaged — and one is changed entirely: Doc, the drugstore owner, is now Doc’s widow Valentina, played by the Anita of the previous film, Rita Moreno. And the Puerto Rican characters frequently speak Spanish to each other, as feels natural; it’s not subtitled, but the emotions behind the words are clear.

You can read to full review here.

West Side Story is based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, not Much Ado About Nothing.

[Bobby Henderson]

When the negative cost is $100 million (call it $120-130m after publicity and distribution), compared to around $60m for an average Hollywood, theatrically released feature, it's got to appeal to most of it.

That's only looking at it from the perspective of a wide-release Hollywood movie playing in garden variety multiplex locations in the middle of the US. Those kinds of "Hollywood movies" aren't made just for the US market anymore. Spanish is the primary language in nearly all the countries South of the US, as well as Spain over in Europe. The rest of the global market is what it is, a patch-work of many languages and cultures. World-wide Spanish is the primary language for over 550 million people (a little over 40 million are in the US).

Even without the relative safety net of the global market this wouldn't be the first big budget movie to target a niche audience. Not by a long shot. Considering what a single movie ticket costs in most places it would only take a fraction of the Latino-American population showing up to theaters for this new version of West Side Story to make back its production costs. A movie can gross over $100 million with less than 10 million tickets sold. Not every big Hollywood movie has to be tailored to appeal to English-only white people.

Heck, we couldn't even have certain genre style movies if they had to appeal to an overly broad common denominator. American movie distributors actually leave a lot of money on the table by making most of their movies for age 20-something white men. It's pretty annoying when members of the still very dominant group display their fragility when a movie is made that is inclusive of another large demographic of people.

[Leo Enticknap]

The movie is going to appeal to a part of the public, not all of it.

When the negative cost is $100 million (call it $120-130m after publicity and distribution), compared to around $60m for an average Hollywood, theatrically released feature, it's got to appeal to most of it. Therefore, the strategy of making a public statement that risks provoking an adverse reaction among potential viewers of the movie is, shall we say, an interesting one.

[Sam Chavez]

Replying to Leo, can't claim to be an expert on what bothers white people. LOL.

There is certainly more immersion into Puerto Rican culture and the actors speak more Spanish than the earlier version and it's more "ethnically correct" as it should be considering the subject matter. On the other hand, I am bothered by the over emphasis of certain newscasters like Jose Diaz Belart's insisting on rolling every last R in every Hispanic name. But I am way off topic. Disculpe por favor.

[Bobby Henderson]

Admittedly I'm veering OT a little, but my point is for a filmmaker to announce publicly, before the movie's release, that it does something that is likely to put a viewer of average education and intelligence off seeing it, that is a risky strategy, to put it mildly.

Given the already deeply polarized opinions of American society I don't think Spielberg is risking much at all. The movie is going to appeal to a part of the public, not all of it. As I stated earlier, many of the people taking offense at that choice of not subtitling a Spanish language scene will take offense at several other aspects of the movie. They're divided off in their own camp. People who do enjoy musicals, dance numbers, shows set in New York City, etc will likely not be too bothered by it.

Really it's too bad any press releases or making-of documentaries on ABC drew attention to the issue. Many viewers probably would not have noticed the lack of subtitles on some scenes, as long as the non-subtitled dialog was not important to the plot. If Spielberg is going full-blown Rosetta Stone Spanish language immersion on the audience then it would be a foolish choice. That's going beyond something that is "woke," it would just be ignorant of practical reality. A movie has to communicate effectively to an audience in order to entertain. It doesn't have to do so in a conventional sense, but it has to do so somehow.

[Leo Enticknap]

Which supports the suspicion that Spielberg's statements about it is more a PR stunt than indicative of a serious problem in selling this movie to the public.

Sam - from what you saw, do you believe that the unsubtitled dialogue is likely to be a problem for a non-Spanish speaking viewer?

But look at us all weighing in on how films should be made. One has to wonder how Spielberg, Tarantino, or Nolan ever managed to make a film without our help.

They certainly do need the help of moviegoing customers (and to a lesser extent movie theater workers, who do a significant part of the job of selling their movies to customers) to continue having access to eight- and nine-figure budgets for new productions: those putting up the money expect a ROI. When filmmakers simply ignore the sensibilities of the paying public (and I mean ignore as distinct from challenge), their Hollywood careers tend not to last long. I know this is an ancient example, but my favorite one is to compare the Hollywood careers of Alfred Hitchcock and Fritz Lang, both of whom were megastars in their European countries of origin, and went to Hollywood within a decade of each other. The former became one of the most successful and influential figures of his professional generation, whereas the latter was quickly reduced to making B-movies that were later celebrated by critics and professors, but which mostly lost money (despite having cost so little to make) and were seen by almost no-one, before finding himself out of work and having to go back to Germany in the late '50s. A comparison of Psycho and While The City Sleeps will quickly show you why. Both were crime movies inspired by real events: but whereas one was a cleverly crafted, audience-engaging thriller that took care not to take too much of a deep dive into what Ed Gein got up to (which would make the shower scene look like children's TV), the latter was yet another "the American dream is actually a nightmare" depressing rant, of the sort that only the arthouse crowd would willingly pay good money to see. Bringing this back to the subject of remakes, Gus van Sant's Psycho remake offers a hint of where the film might have gone if Hitchcock had done the deeper dive, which is one of the things I like about it.

Admittedly I'm veering OT a little, but my point is for a filmmaker to announce publicly, before the movie's release, that it does something that is likely to put a viewer of average education and intelligence off seeing it, that is a risky strategy, to put it mildly.

[James Biggins]

I've read quite a few reviews of this movie and the subtitle 'issue' has never been mentioned in any of them so far.

Just sayin'.

[Sam Chavez]

Saw this film tonight. Plenty to talk about and I'm old enough to have seen the original version as a young adult several times and now this version. It's hard not to compare this version and the original, scene by scene. But each has to stand on its own. The actors portraying Tony and Maria are certainly much better actors than Richard Beymer and Natalie Wood. For sheer beauty the original film was far prettier if that is the point.

But look at us all weighing in on how films should be made. One has to wonder how Spielberg, Tarantino, or Nolan ever managed to make a film without our help.

[Randy Stankey]

Shouldn't there be a "Hasta la vista, Señor Bond!" in there... ?

LOL! Absolutely!

I think it would be too distracting to have characters speaking "Pidgeon Spanish" just to help us English-only speakers along.

Agreed! Not to mention insulting to native speakers.

I was thinking about choice of words like "muerte" or "matar" versus something like "asesinar." Ordering a lackey to "assasinate" somebody might be the more correct term but an evil bad guy who is really pissed off could, conceivably, say "murder." This choice of words is subtle. A grammar teacher might squint at it but most regular Spanish speakers would get it. The bottom line is that more average non-speaking whites are likely to pick out the meaning.

... That's going to check off a lot of boxes. ...

So true!

I was talking to my girlfriend's father, discussing why they do certain things in movie scenes, and I quipped, "It must have tested well in the focus groups," and he just busted out laughing!

... which raises the question as to why Spielberg decided to draw attention to this in advance of the release. ...

Because, back in the day, they could do things like pay a bunch of women to dress up like nuns and stage a fake protest in front of a theater that's playing "The Last Temptation of Christ" but, with the virus looming over peoples' heads, it wouldn't work. Besides, a fake protest by Puerto Rican actors might be interpreted as real and cause a real disturbance.

Instead, it's a lot easier to put out a press release and let real Puerto Ricans do your dirty work for you.

[Leo Enticknap]

Shouldn't there be a "Hasta la vista, Señor Bond!" in there, with the Gert Frobe character cackling manically as Bond is lowered into the piranha pool?

First off, someone really has to ask: Why was this remade? It's not as if the original sucked, you know. And Ive run the original, in 70mm mag, in 35mm mag, Tech prints, reprints, singalong prints, the works. Holds up pretty darn well. And shot in 70, just to put some icing on that cake. So, again, whats the point?

Some remakes can add to, or reimagine the original in interesting ways, but more often it's because there is a large section of the mainstream audience for whom any movie over around a decade old sucks, no matter how good it actually is. So by remaking it with a cast of current stars, you can squeeze new money out of an old story.

Some of the bitching I'm seeing elsewhere about the Spanish dialog with no subtitles sounds like people jumping on the opportunity to get triggered over something they find "woke."

Agreed, which raises the question as to why Spielberg decided to draw attention to this in advance of the release. I kinda agree with Brad that if it's just the odd couple of lines here and there, he wouldn't have done. Hopefully he's done this along similar lines to the Spanish exchanges in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre - they give the movie some authentic ambience, to add to the rarity value of a Warners Bogie pic shot mainly on location, with only a few scenes on the lot, but they don't prevent a non-Spanish speaker from understanding and enjoying it. Maybe Spielberg's PR people believe that whipping up a political controversy around the movie might boost attendance - people going to see what all the fuss is about?

[Bobby Henderson]

That's not mundane. It's an important part of the plot because it sets up the next big chase scene. Without knowing that the boss told the henchman to find Bond, the big chase scene doesn't make sense. That scene might last for less than thirty seconds but it is integral to setting up the action that follows.

The scene is still visually presented in a context where the audience gets the gist of what the bad guys said. That's sort of what I said earlier. And that dramatic device has been used in many films. Any movie will also have all sorts of other throw-away dialog going on that doesn't need to be subtitled either. And it sucks when one happens to turn on closed caption settings in a movie. Because everything will often be subtitled if it needs it or not. The throw-away dialog subtitles can distract some more important dialog.

Maybe the language (Spanish) could be watered down to use simple grammar (telegraphic speech) or more common words that your average White American are likely to understand. With the right facial expressions and gestures the meaning of the dialogue will be more apparent even if the words are not fully understood.

I think characters speaking languages other than English need to speak it how that character would in real life. In the case of Spanish there are many forms, with "proper" Castilian Spanish being what we get taught in high school. People in Mexico or Puerto Rico don't speak Spanish like that, just like you're not going to encounter many people here in Oklahoma speaking English the way they do in the UK. I think it would be too distracting to have characters speaking "Pidgeon Spanish" just to help us English-only speakers along. I'm not fluent in Spanish or Japanese, but I've heard enough of both languages to know how they're supposed to sound. It's not hard to tell when someone is faking it.

The big decision is whether or not to subtitle certain scenes or not. If a movie or TV show is heavy with dialog in Spanish then I'm going to end up losing quite a bit of the story without subtitles. I've tried watching episodes of Narcos without the subtitles and it's difficult as hell. Even if I can understand many of the words the characters will often mumble the lines. Ultimately it's a balancing act. No one likes reading subtitles. So if there is any way to economize on them it's a good thing.

Overall, this "controversy" is a NON-ISSUE. The demographic getting their panties in a twist over the "woke-ness" of this re-make of West Side Story aren't likely to see the damned movie in the first place. The movie is a musical, set in New York City, has an anti-prejudice message and focused on characters comprised of Puerto Rican immigrants and ethnic Whites. Oh, and some gay men were among those created the play and movie. That's going to check off a lot of boxes. It's pretty clear quite a few Americans have their minds made up to never watch that movie in the first place, regardless if some scenes are subtitled or not.